Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax

from the well,-of-course-it-does dept

Fri, Apr 2nd 2010 11:03am — Mike Masnick

This probably isn't a huge surprise, but the Commerce Department has now come out in favor of the performance rights tax on radio stations, which will force radio stations to pay up to promote music. Basically, as it stands right now, when a radio station plays music, it pays the songwriters/composers, but not the performers. That's because the performers are getting free promotion by getting their songs heard on the radio. As we've pointed out, this is really something of a "bailout" for the RIAA, which will get a new stream of cash for something that makes absolutely no sense in an open market. Historically, record labels have always been known to (often illegally) pay the radio stations to play music. That's because they knew, quite explicitly, that there's value in having their music played.

But, then, when they started pushing for this new tax, suddenly they amusingly started to claim that radio is "a kind of piracy." Seriously. However, they then immediately contradicted themselves by then accusing one radio station of illegally not playing their music.

Basically, the recording industry is willing to make any argument, no matter how contradictory to get this free money, which they claim they're entitled to. They say that they need to get paid for music played on the radio at the same time that they're pushing money the other direction just to get on the air (since they know it's really a promotion). They say that radio is "pirating" from them, but when a radio station stops playing RIAA music (which should make them happy if it's really "piracy,") they accuse them of abusing the airwaves, and demand an FCC investigation.

This has been nothing but a blatant attempt by the recording industry to get free money through legislative fiat, and it's ridiculous that the Commerce Department would support such an effort.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: piracy, tax
Companies: riaa

145 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Nick Dynice (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:07am

I think the RIAA just made the argument: piracy is free payola.

And I think the RIAA has this set of conflicting beliefs:

• Payola has so much value it is illegal.
• Something is not right if a station does not want to play our members' music.
• Radio is a kind of piracy because we don't get all of the possible fees.
• The only kind of legal music promotion is membered sanctioned.
• There is no such thing as legitimate, non-sanctioned promotion because that is a performance in which we get a fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re:
  "Something is not right if a station does not want to play our members' music."
  
  Well, yeah, but not the way they think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
headkase (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:19am

Control?
I think it is much more difficult to control a distributed mass of web-broadcasters and that is what shifted the balance to making them pay-to-play. When you can't move the payola around effectively to promote where your profits will come from there is no benefit to the "promotion" argument. The lack of control and therefore requirement to pay for web-casters accidently came back to bite radio broadcasters to maintain the illusion of being "fair." Of course, taken with a grain of salt ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: Control?
  what?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Megore, 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:26am

Wow there's sure is alot of craziness today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  Maybe some people think this year is a leap year?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:44am

Ahhh....RIAA....where every day is April Fools Day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just me, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:02pm
  
  Re:
  by Anonymous Coward
  Ahhh....RIAA....where every day is April Fools Day.
  
  I got it. lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:51am

In case you were wondering...
...if it were possible to have less music on the radio and more commercials, get ready to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: In case you were wondering...
  Get ready for all Talk Radio. Then expect a law that requires radio station to play 4 hour blocks of music for cultural reasons. You know "for the good of the people". Our politicians have there hands strangling...er finger on the pulse of the people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:00pm
    
    Re: Re: In case you were wondering...
    talk Radio is funny !
    
    schwetty balls
    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/nprs-delicious-dish-schweddy-balls/2846/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re: In case you were wondering...
  Try only commercials. Course with only commercials you have no one listening/buying. That should be real fun if in a year all radio is either NPR or Classical which is in the free use domain. Course, then it will be all those internet dl that killed radio. Up next is suing people who have their music to loud for "public" performance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re: In case you were wondering...
    Even if the composition is in the public domain, the performance is not. So, no classical music either (in this dystopian vision you're having). Just talk radio and commercials.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Krusty, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:02pm

It's the government of course it's screwed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:05pm

Payments go to the performers?
What percentage of this new "tax" will actually be given to the original performers? Five percent? Ten percent? Looks a little like the studios are intending to use the performers as "hostages" to rake in more "ransom payments" from consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re: Payments go to the performers?
  There will probably be an admin fee of about 10% taken off the top. The remaining approx. 90% will be divided something like this:
  
  40% to the sound recording owner (usually the label)
  30% to the featured artist
  10% to non-featured artists
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
    Be honest..."90% will be divided something like this:"
    
    55% to the RIAA Menbers
    44.5% to label CEO's
    .04% label CEO expense fund
    .01% to artist. When they can "Find" them
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
      My 90% division was rough (actually it only added up to 80%, LOL) but it was pretty accurate. Your depiction is not at all accurate. I appreciate your skepticism, but your figures are not factual in this case. You have been brainwashed by big media conglomerates.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        no, big media conglomerates would like you to believe that the artists get most of the money.
        
        Your numbers are made up, his/her numbers are based on historical and other evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        I know what I am talking about. I am a royalty auditor and I audit performance royalties, so I know how it works. There are always problems, but, sound recording performance royalties are paid from the collection agent directly to the artist and record companies, so the artist share will not pass through the record companies.... Thus, record companies won't ever get their hands on the artist shares of US sound recording performance royalties.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        I'll stick /w my buccaneer ways. More honest. Still amazing to me that more problems arise when multi-hundreds of millions are involved /w the same percentages. Seems linear to me....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "I know what I am talking about."
        
        Even if true, the assumption here is that you can be trusted.
        
        Secondly, there is no evidence to support what you claim, the evidence suggests the opposite. So I am going to reasonably go with the evidence over your word.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        What evidence do you have? Have you read the bill?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        The word of the bill do nothing to diminish the fact that the RIAA rips off artists. The evidence is in the fact that they don't pay the artists, regardless of what the bill says. We've discussed the evidence before on tehcdirt, but I suspect you will merely ignore it.
        
        http://consumerist.com/2008/03/riaa-pockets-filesharing-settlement-money-doesnt-pay-artists-w hose-copyrights-were-infringed.html
        
        and this is just a small DROP in the bucket. By and large the RIAA does not pay its artists.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091212/0856497323.shtml
        
        and when you say that such a large percentage of the money goes to artists this is nonsense, even contracts stipulate that they only get paid a small percentage if they even get paid.
        
        The RIAA doesn't even update its website stipulating who is and isn't signed and lets not forget about the CRIA that also did nothing to pay its artists for like twenty years or so.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091207/1201017234.shtml
        
        You simply ignore the evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        (to continue)
        
        oh, and more evidence you will ignore.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090909/0318406140.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "I know what I am talking about. I am a royalty auditor and I audit performance royalties, so I know how it works. There are always problems, but, sound recording performance royalties are paid from the collection agent directly to the artist and record companies, so the artist share will not pass through the record companies.... Thus, record companies won't ever get their hands on the artist shares of US sound recording performance royalties."
        
        On behalf of those who appreciate constructive input, thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        The handful big media companies who own nearly all of the USA's commercial radio stations are going to great lengths to mislead the public to think that artists will not receive a significant share of the performance royalties. This is a lie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        No, what you're saying is a lie and you know it. Big media constantly condemns piracy under the pretext that it takes from artists (ie: Fox news wanting to destroy fair use). The assumption is that these collection agencies will actually pay the artists. The evidence suggests otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        If you believe the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters), unfortunately, you have been misled. I have not lied. As I said in a prior post, there are always problems with payments. (That's why I have a job - I find and recover major unpaid royalties for artists). But, I can't ignore the evidence I see every day: Namely, my clients who record overseas already collect hundreds of thousands in neighboring rights (sound recording) royalties for terrestrial airplay, and all of my music artist clients already collect thousands of US sound recording royalties in connection with non-interactive digital radio. This and the bill itself is evidence to me that, while the system will surely have problems, both artists and record companies will generally get paid rather equal shares for terrestrial radio after this bill is passed. Even better, artists and record companies won't just get paid from the US, but also the rest of the world - the legislation may allow the US to participate in reciprocal agreements with other territories and unlock a whole new stream of revenue into the US from Europe, Asia and beyond that they have forgone since the government many years ago involved itself and exempted radio stations from paying sound recording royalties.
        
        What evidence suggests otherwise? If it is from the NAB, I suggest you consider it with a healthy dose of skepticism and balance the information with viewpoints from artist rights advocates.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "But, I can't ignore the evidence I see every day: "
        
        and I can't ignore the evidence that the RIAA consists of a bunch of lying thieves who contradict themselves (ie: they claim piracy undermines the humanitarian efforts in Haiti which is basically a lie, they contradict themselves as the OP has demonstrated, and they are extortionists even as the OP has demonstrated). When I take everything within the context that they are liars it becomes obvious that they don't regard morality and therefore they probably don't pay their artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        I think you have me confused with someone who supports the RIAA, LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        Irrelevant, the point is that artists do not get paid for their work and you ignore said evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        Artists are often underpaid for their work, which is why I audit record companies. However, artists often do get paid something for their work and neighboring rights are one way through which they will be paid for their work, so I don't get why you are against it, if your main concern is artists getting paid.
        
        I am not ignoring any "evidence". I am in the business of getting artists paid! Your statement that artists do not get paid for their work shows that you are ignorant of a mountain of well documented facts that I don't have time to enumerate for you.
        
        You should read the book "All You Need To Know About the Music Business" by Donald Passman, Esq. to learn from a more objective viewpoint than an opinion blog the difference between artists and songwriters and to learn about different basic sources of income, and the history behind them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "so I don't get why you are against it, if your main concern is artists getting paid."
        
        I am not against artists getting paid, I am against RIAA parasitic thugs getting paid a dime. These people are evil liars and I am in favor of them being jailed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "Your statement that artists do not get paid for their work shows that you are ignorant of a mountain of well documented facts that I don't have time to enumerate for you. "
        
        What mountain of facts? Where? You haven't presented any facts whatsoever, just your unsupported opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        If I start explaining more about how artist royalties are paid (and underpaid) I will get accused of schilling my services. Besides I have royalties to claim for my artist clients who do indeed get paid, otherwise they couldn't afford my services.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        Well, until I see evidence I will reasonably assume you are wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "I will get accused of schilling my services."
        
        Amazing, so first you claim that the problem is that you have no time to enumerate the mountains of evidence and when that gets refuted, now your excuse is that you don't want to be accused of "schilling [your] services." More reason why what you're saying makes no sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "You should read the book"
        
        Why not engage in a dialog and enlighten us instead?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "Artists are often underpaid for their work, which is why I audit record companies."
        
        As an auditor I suspect you audit record companies to ensure they pay their taxes. As the laws stand, it is not the job of an auditor to tell a private entity, like a record company, how much to spend on what (ie: how much to spend on artists). Just to ensure they don't get busted by the IRS. So basically your auditing caries very little legal binding force with respect to how much an artist gets paid since you have no standing to sue on behalf of an artist, if an artist feels that the labels breached a contract the artist must sue. I don't even see how what you're saying makes any sense
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        (btw, I'm not an auditor, when I said as an auditor I was referring to your position as an auditor).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        If you want to understand more about how I hold licensees and business partners accountable, please see my web site:
        
        www.royaltyauditors.com
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        Hi there,
        
        You misunderstand my role. I am a royalty compliance auditor that is best known for my audits of record companies on behalf of recording artists and publishers solely for purposes of disclosing contractual and statutory underpayments due my clients. (Said another way, my audits have nothing to do with taxes or financial statements.)
        
        All best.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "This and the bill itself is evidence to me that"
        
        Sorry, a bill is evidence of nothing. Even if a bill stipulates that artists should get paid doesn't mean they actually DO get paid. What a law says and how it's applied could very well be two completely different things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "the legislation may allow"
        
        So your whole premise lies on a bunch of speculation regarding what MAY happen, not what WILL happen. In other words, you have zero evidence to support your claims.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        On April 20, I will be moderating a panel discussion at the California Copyright Conference where we will discuss the impact of the neighboring rights legislation. You can hear about it from other experts, not just me.
        
        Visit www.theccc.org to reserve your seat!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        I don't care what these self proclaimed "experts" say, this whole thing rests on the assumption that non public domain content should make it on PUBLIC airwaves. If the FCC is going to regulate public airwaves and grant monopolies I contend that they should regulate it in the best interest of the PUBLIC and according to the will of the PUBLIC. If not, then the FCC should simply be disbarred. and as a citizen I content that ALL content over public airwaves should either be in the PUBLIC domain or released under some CC license or Gnu-GPL type license. The government should not be allowed to grant a monopoly on both the communication medium AND on the content at the same time.
        
        "Performance royalties haven't hurt the broadcast industry in the rest of the world."
        
        Even if true it is irrelevant, I am more concerned with the best interest of the public, not some private industry. The problem is that you can care less about what's in the best interest of the public and your comments reflect your inability to think about what's in the public interest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        "As I said in a prior post, there are always problems with payments."
        
        The whole system is a problem. The record labels get away with not paying and, by and large, they don't even get punished (much less sufficiently punished) by our broken legal system even when they do get caught by the public. Based on this alone it is reasonable to assume they get away with it far more often than they get caught, and they've been caught quite a few times. For them to have gotten caught as often as they have suggests they are used to this kind of behavior and if they are used to this kind of behavior it suggests that they have weighed the risks of getting caught with the benefits of not getting caught and have determined that the benefits outweigh the risks exactly because they are used to getting away with this sort of thing. When criminals get caught it is usually safe to assume that they have gotten away with crimes many times for each time they get caught. Same here and until the law sufficiently punishes these record labels for their crimes when they do get caught to deter them from taking the small risk of getting caught I will reasonably assume that they are getting away with it more often than not.
        
        The whole legal system itself is a corrupt scam intended to unfairly benefit them and as evidence the laws in place are designed to serve them (ie: copyprivilege length). When taking their behavior in context of our broken legal system that they have unethically created it is reasonable to assume that our system is designed to help them get away with scamming the public and the artists and they do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        Yes, the record label business model is predicated on ripping off artists, since only some of them can afford to hire auditors (and sometimes sue) to get even a portion of what they are due. Companies get "caught" more often than you think, as they are constantly being audited and very few cases make it into the public eye (most are confidentially settled before they reach the litigation phase). Incidentally, a lot of the indies are worse than the majors.
        
        I should point out that it isn't just record labels who do this. I also audit digital media companies, music publishers, cable channels, video game, film, consumer electronics companies in Asia, Europe, Central America, Australia and USA. It's all the same. Any company who owes a party millions in contingent compensation finds ways to underreport, from ambiguous contractual terms to mistakes that happen to be in the licensor's favor. It is pretty consistent regardless of industry, or location. I guess it is just human nature. That's why I have a job.
        
        I just can't believe how many people out there think their business partner would "never do that." They are almost all wrong!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        I meant: "mistakes" that happen to be in the licensee's favor.
        
        It's way too late to be posting on techdirt, lol.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        and your post demonstrates more evidence against the idea that the government should grant monopoly rents on anything (ie: either content or airwave bandwidth) and against the idea that radio stations should be forced to pay for music, being that the money often doesn't even make it to the artists like it's supposed to. It's human nature, more often than not government monopolies and things like that create large scale fraud.
        
        But I do note that this post contradicts many of the other posts you made.
        
        "Your statement that artists do not get paid for their work shows that you are ignorant of a mountain of well documented facts that I don't have time to enumerate for you. "
        
        No, my statements were not based on ignorance, they're based on fact.
        
        and by caught I also meant cases that make it into the public eye. and if they get caught so often then that suggests they think they can get away with it and the risks of committing fraud outweigh the risks of getting caught exactly because they know they can get away with it and that when they get caught the punishment is not sufficient to deter them. It's a broken legal system indeed.
        
        I want you to read a post by someone else.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1804328453.shtml
        
        The post is by Ryan on Mar 9th, 2010 @ 2:58pm
        
        The government grants monopolies on things and it is this monopoly granting that creates corruption. Without it everyone will be free to act in their own best interest and, in a free market, competitors will ensure you are honest because if you rip off your customers competitors will take them. But the government distorted market assumes the government is better able to determine the public interest and governments are inherently corrupt (human nature). That's why I'm largely in favor of alleviating IP privileges and, if the FCC wants to continue to allow monopolies on public airwaves, at least having the FCC ensure that only public domain works (or Creative Commons works or works released under a similar license) makes it on public domain. The airwaves are for the public, they should be for the public good and for the public to use and communicate with, there should be no monopoly on both the airwaves and on the content. It creates a system, like the current one we have, where monopolists have an incentive to ensure that anything that's easily available to the public (ie: over public airwaves) is only available at monopoly prices (ie: more commercials, less music). It is an act of corruption that has created and maintains these laws and it's also an act of corruption that creates a legal systme that systematically keeps the people ignorant about the things we discuss here on techdirt (ie: the fact that the labels frequently scam the artists). The public airwaves shouldn't be a commercial giveaway for special interest groups, they should be allocated in the best interest of the public.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 11:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        errr.
        
        ...makes it on public domain.
        
        Should read
        
        makes it on public airwaves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 12:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        In other words, I want to be able to copy whatever's on public airwaves, freely, and do whatever I want with it (ie: copy and freely distribute it to others as I see fit), you have absolutely NO right to take up public airwave bandwidth that I could otherwise use and then to tell me I can't freely copy anything on those PUBLIC airwaves. and you have even LESS right to tell me I can't use those public airwaves for my own purposes and then to tell me I can't copy what's on those airwaves and freely distribute it. Those airwaves don't inherently belong to you anymore than they belong to me and you have absolutely no right to control others like this. This level of control that hands public airwaves over to special interest groups for commercial purposes is an act of corruption and I will not support it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
        Well in an industry of closed books, shoddy record keeping, known track record of non payments. Fantasy statistical analysis. Deduction skill of psycho ex-girl friends (magnet)
        Any numbers I wish to throw out there are factual enough.
        
        Cheers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
    But if you are watching Fox News it would be:
    
    The remaining approx. 90% will be divided something like this:
    
    50% to the sound recording owner (usually the label)
    35% to the featured artist
    15% to non-featured artists
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
    By law, 100% of these new fees will be paid to the copyright holders (i.e. record labels), to be distributed as they see fit. The labels are contractually obligated to pay the artists their fair share, but we've all seen how bad they do this job.
    
    Your numbers may be accurate in the old Harry Fox days, but not anymore. This is not the raising of existing fees, it is an entirely new fee system that has no relationship to the old terrestrial radio system.
    
    In fact, it's only being justified because similar fees are in place for internet radio. Here's the catch: the only reason those fees exist at all was because the RIAA convinced lawmakers that internet radio was fundamentally different from terrestrial radio. Since it was digital transmission, they argued, it was filesharing, therefore "piracy."
    
    I guess they figured that if that excuse worked once, it'll work again.
    
    ...And no discussion of this issue is complete without this story:
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/riaa-sues-radio-stations-for-giving-away-free-musi,48/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Payments go to the performers?
      Hi Karl,
      
      LOL re: Onion.
      
      With respect, your facts are wrong. The fees will go to to an agent (e.g., SoundExchange), which will distribute royalties as follows:
      
      50 percent - Sound recording copyright owner (while often a record label, some artists own the copyright for their master recordings)
      45 percent - DIRECTLY to the featured artist (not to the record label or RIAA)
      5 percent - non-featured artists [AFTRA] and [AFM]
      
      HFA has nothing to do with sound recording royalties or performance royalties, now or in the past (HFA licenses and collects mechanical publishing royalties).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:07pm

This ismn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:12pm

This isn't a tax
It isn't a tax. The money does not go to the government. It is a license fee.

Even if radio promotes recordings, radio derives profit from the recordings through ad sales, so it is only fair that the artists and labels are paid for radio's use of the music.

We are one of the only countries outside of places like North Korea and Iran who don't recognize this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re: This isn't a tax
  Over time there will be more music available as artists bail on the labels, and independants produce and release music under CC, and other liscences. The unintended consequnce of this is going to be more CC music being played as RIAA squeezes the radio stations for ever higher licensing fees. You will see this start in high school and college radio stations as they are the poorest.
  
  The future holds the nightly "indie hour" where CC music is played as a trial to test the water. Free streaming CC music that the radio stations use to see what should be played on the radio during "indie hour".
  
  JMHO
  
  David
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re: This isn't a tax
  If we don't push this through, we are the same as COMMIES. You don't wanna be a COMMIE do you?
  
  2010 != 1952
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re: This isn't a tax
  It isn't a tax. The money does not go to the government. It is a license fee.
  
  Whether the government ever touches the money or not, this is relevant...how? It is a fee that a certain group is forced by the government to pay for engaging in a certain action. That is a tax six ways to Sunday, and you can drop the doublespeak.
  
  Even if radio promotes recordings, radio derives profit from the recordings through ad sales, so it is only fair that the artists and labels are paid for radio's use of the music.
  
  Uhh, no. That makes no sense at all. My company uses chairs in the course of creating a profit, without which our productivity would be much lower. Are we obligated to pay the chair manufacturer? The artists and labels are better off if radio plays it than if they don't play it...so by what logic are they owed compensation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re: This isn't a tax
    Your company did pay the chair manufacturer when it bought chairs!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
      but not because the government mandated it directly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
      But the difference is that the buyer and seller are two parties whereas the taxing government collecting the tax is a largely unnecessary third party to the transaction.
      
      In this case, the RIAA is using government force to act as an unnecessary third party that collects the tax. It's no different than if the government taxed the music and gave it directly to the RIAA. It's a tax, you can argue semantics, but the effect is that it's a tax and that's what I'm going to properly call it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        I see that you don't know the complete history: The government got involved many years ago to exempt radio stations from paying sound recording royalties. The new legislation is meant to undo that, so that there can now be negotiations between the buyer and seller, or radio stations can take advantage of statutory licensing, instead of having to negotiate with every copyright owner. (Further, these statutory rates are intended to reflect the promotional value offered by airplay.)
        
        Also, incidentally, the government won't be "collecting the tax." One or more agents of those with sound recording interests will be collecting the license fees, which will bring parity to all types of radio.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "I see that you don't know the complete history"
        
        I do know the history, we've discussed it before on techdirt.
        
        "or radio stations can take advantage of statutory licensing"
        
        No, it's not a matter taking advantage of licensing because this does not help the radio stations in any way.
        
        "instead of having to negotiate with every copyright owner."
        
        What? If they were previously exempt from playing royalties why would they have to negotiate?
        
        "Also, incidentally, the government won't be "collecting the tax.""
        
        I Know, and that's even WORSE. The RIAA, a criminal organization that I want jailed, will be collecting the tax instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DJ, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "The government got involved many years ago...."
        
        That's the problem! Ever heard of "Laissez-faire"? (sp?). It basically means to let people/companies do as they choose; aka free market. Government should stay out of the market. Period. When a company starts questionable practices, THE CONSUMERS shut them down by not buying their product/service; aka bankrupt.
        
        For example: I've always been a GM man, but I personally believe that the company should no longer exist; or at least have been dissolved. I will no longer purchase a GM product (besides I'm already a share-holder by default)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Hi DJ -
        
        I agree with you that the problem is that the government got involved many years ago. If it hadn't, artists and sound recording owners would have been collecting US neighboring rights royalties this whole time!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Okay Very Pretty Lady, its time for you to go back to your house under the golden gate bridge ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        LOL, I'm no troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Just curious do you use an iPhone or BlackBerry?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Google Nexus One
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 5:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Neat phone. I prefer the blackberry
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "I agree with you that the problem is that the government got involved many years ago."
        
        and I agree, the problem is when the government got involved by creating the FCC and started giving monopoly power on public airwaves and then they made the problem even worse when they thought it's somehow ethical to give monopoly power on the content delivered on those public airwaves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Without government regulation, a free market is impossible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        I have several questions about this Not-A-Tax ...
        
        1-will it be on a song by song basis so all the artists can be paid and not just the top 200? We have the technology now to
        
        2-will the radio stations be required to record every song played so an accurate acounting can be determined?
        
        3-will this accounting be open to public scrutiny and external auditing and review?
        
        4-what do you do if a class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of the artists to force a non-RIAA affiliated company to collect the metrics on number of plays by artists and at which stations?
        
        5-will Creative commons music be exempt from this tax?
        
        Since the recording industry is notorious for rounding errors these points need to brought up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        OK, I will do my best to address your questions, since they are the best questions anyone has asked in this thread:
        
        1 - Like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC royalties, the blanket license fees charged to music radio stations will be allocated on a song by song basis, but probably based on sampling, since the cost of using the technology to cover everything, everywhere, 100% of the time would cost more than the license fee itself. (You want there to be plenty of pie left over to eat.) However, it is moving in the direction of more accuracy, as costs decrease to the point where the benefits of having exact information outweigh the costs.
        
        2 - This is less desirable than sampling because radio stations are known to provide incorrect logs. But, probably in areas where there is not enough electronic sampling, or for purposes of verifying the electronic sampling, logs sheets will be requested on a test basis
        
        3 - Sound Exchange audits its licensees, but they don't use the best auditors. I know they don't have the best auditors because they aren't my client yet. However, Sound Exchange does not seem to be very transparent. (This is a whole other subject that I could go on and on about... but I digress.)
        
        4 - Are you referring to Sound Exchange or to companies it hires to monitor airplay? If you mean an action to force the playing field open to competition amongst different collection agents, I know an attorney who has sued twice (arguing the CRB and therefore Sound Exchange as the sole collection agent are unconstitutional), but I think his clients keep giving up. If you know someone else who wants to sue, LMK! I do think the government made a mistake by giving Sound Exchange a monopoly, although the competition isn't any better, IMO. At least Sound Exchange has some very active artist advocates on its board. It isn't totally affiliated with the RIAA. I think the CRB may open up the market in the next five years, if it isn't forced to do so sooner.
        
        5 - It isn't a tax. A radio station can opt to use creative commons license or public domain recordings and songs, or it can obtain a license (including a gratis or free license) directly from the copyright holders, in which case it won't have to pay anything to Sound Exchange or any other similar CRB-designated agent. Paying a statutory royalty (what you called a "tax") is just one option available to broadcasters.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 6:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "since they are the best questions anyone has asked in this thread:"
        
        Thanks I love flatery, doesnt get you anywhere with me but I love it just the same ... :)
        
        "since the cost of using the technology to cover everything, everywhere, 100% of the time would cost more than the license fee itself."
        
        The reason I asked if you had an iPhone was to use the line there is an app for that ... the iPhone has a song sampling and determination app. You let it listen to a song it tells you what the song is. It is simple and cheap to determine what songs are being played you need a feed of the web broadcast of the radio station, you need a sampling app, and you need storage. I could set the entire system up for under 1M with new equipment. With the monies involved 1 million is a rounding error. No need for the station to get involved other than to make sure the web and radio versions are the same.
        
        "I know an attorney who has sued twice (arguing the CRB and therefore Sound Exchange as the sole collection agent are unconstitutional), but I think his clients keep giving up."
        
        They can actually be taken on by what I said above ... there is an app for that ... prove the accounting is faulty. Just do a screen saver that listens to web based radio stations, determines the songs, reports back, it for free. The software is already written in the distributed computing project. Also it would be a hit with the Anti RIAA crowd.
        
        Now more questions ... (Shoe drops)
        
        "or it can obtain a license (including a gratis or free license) directly from the copyright holders,"
        
        6-Can the Creative commons be re-written to include this automatically? This way artists dont have to licence each station.
        
        7-What can the collection agencies do about "indie hour"? Meaning if radio stations do an hour (day, weekend, week) to test the response to independent artists (Creative commons type) can anything be done legally to stop them?
        
        8-Web broadcasting also requires a fee. If the music played is all indie, CC (licensed directly from the copyright holder) will they be charged by the collection agencies for secondary channels of just CC music?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Hi -
        
        I think I use Shazaam for Android, so I know what you're talking about. There are a lot of different technologies out there to identify songs and sound recordings, but generally the owners of the technology charge performance rights societies significant license fees, and it isn't as cheap and easy as everyone thinks to have the technology listening 100% of the time, everywhere. Also, the technology isn't perfect. So, while I think we are moving toward 99% digital accuracy in the next decade, I think it is going to continue for some time as a mix of digital technology and logs. Of course, I am not an expert on this matter.
        
        I have been approached by people wanting to sue ASCAP or BMI because it didn't allocate enough or anything to a particular performance. The truth is, ASCAP and BMI are under pressure to be accurate as well as to keep admin costs down. So, they strive to strike a balance between perfection and efficiency. They set aside a fund from which they pay people who claim to be underrepresented. For example, if your band plays bars and sends in its set-lists, ASCAP will send a few bucks your way from this fund. But to hire someone to stand in the bar and write down every song by every unknown writer not in the Shazaam database that was performed would cost more than ASCAP even collects from the bar, so you can see how it is impossible to perfectly allocate the income. I am not a lawyer, but I think the reason there aren't more cases making the argument that you described is that the collection societies do use their best efforts to fairly allocate the license fees without driving up costs and they are able to demonstrate this in court. If you consider that most of the performances are attributable to 10% of the works, most of the performance royalties should go to 10% of the works and the performance rights organizations (PROs) do a pretty good job of doing that and are getting better, especially with respect to the works with relatively few performances (the other 90% of the works), as technology improves and gets cheaper. Sound Exchange has been as good as the digital information provided to it from the webcasters (which is sometimes very good and other times nonexistant), but if it starts collecting terrestrial radio, it will be in the same position as the PROs (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC which collect publishing performance royalties). Bottom line: There is plenty of room for improvement, and things are improving as technology improves and gets cheaper.
        
        As an auditor, I am more appreciative of this point than most people are. When I do an audit, I can't look at every penny because it would cost my client more than he or she would recover. So, I look at the major activity and make sure I claim all of the major unpaid royalties, and then I test the minor activity to disclose other problems. It is the only way to evaluate the data in an efficient manner, to maximize my client's financial recovery. PROs and Sound Exchange have the same concern.
        
        6 - I won't get into why, but major record companies are not going to make their sound recordings available via a creative commons license, although some indies or artists who own their masters might, although I wouldn't recommend it. And no label will have to license each station because most stations are owned by the same handful of companies, and for smaller stations it will make much more sense to opt for the statutory license because it is so cheap (it will cost most of them less than $1,000/year, many just $100). It will probably make sense for the big conglomerate stations to do this as well, since the statutory license fees are simply not nearly as expensive as the NAB makes them out to be. The whole point of the statutory license and rates (that people here call a tax) is to make the licensing process as painless and automatic as possible for all parties, but stations can opt to license directly if they choose.
        
        7 - Not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether anything can be done to stop the station from broadcasting music subject to the creative commons license? I would have to re-read the creative commons license language (it has been a while), but if the station could document that the recordings it broadcast were subject to the cc license, then Sound Exchange wouldn't have a case against a station for playing it. Now, there are different types of licenses from Sound Exchange that a station can choose, and some of them are blanket licenses where it wouldn't really decrease the fee a station paid just because one of the tracks was not subject to the blanket license. Other licenses are per use licenses, so the repertoire programming would impact the license fees. However, these licenses were designed for stations that do not play much music, so most music stations would be better off with a blanket license, unless they were mostly playing directly licensed music.
        
        8 - Webcasting is very similar, except webcasters are already paying sound performance royalties. (Despite the uproar that it would put them out of business, it didn't.) If a webcaster has direct licenses, CC or not, my understanding is that it need not pay SoundExchange. Realistically, most of the music that people want to webcast is not CC and therefore it is easiest and cheapest to go through Sound Exchange. Now, you mentioned a secondary channel. The question of what constitutes a "channel" is not clear. Live 365 is a service that lets anyone set up a webcast station and it was one of the two plaintiffs I previously mentioned who argued that the CRB was unconstitutional. It was very interested in this because it had so many thousands of "channels" compared to other webcasters. I think it lost the case on summary judgement and didn't appeal. It looks like it is still in business, so I don't know whether it is paying the fee for every channel, or if it has been able to convince Sound Exchange that it is just one webcaster, or obtain direct licenses from the majors. In any case, I do not think it is perfectly clear what constitutes a channel.
        
        Hope I answered your questions. Have a great weekend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Thank you pretty lady who doesnt live under a bridge ... :)
        
        You have been most informative. I discussed several things with some friends.
        
        -The creative commons (CC) can be re worded to automatically allow for any radio station to play the music without checking with the artist.
        
        -If a radio station has secondary web broadcasts-channels playing only the above mentioned CC liscensed music they dont have to pay sound exchange.
        
        -The above allows for anyone running a web radio station to use this with out charge and without checking with the copyright holder.
        
        -I just got the source code of a 3 year old open source project that recognizes sound patterns. It works really well (94%) if the pattern of what you are looking for is stored and the longer the piece the better it works. It just seems to be a 2 dimensional array with a best guess search function. Pretty simple actually. So liscensing isnt an issue if you post the code you develop. (this is to determine what is playing on what station)
        
        Now more questions ...
        
        Can you email me? Ask the admins here to give you my e-mail address they have done this before? I have some other side of the fence ideas to bounce off of you. [The enlightened person seeks all opinions]
        
        How long do you think the media distribution companies are going to last? (this is multiple questions News Papers, Music, Video)
        
        What do you think the iPad and pay walls will do for Rupert Murdoch?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 9:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "although some indies or artists who own their masters might, although I wouldn't recommend it."
        
        There are sites dedicated to creative commons music and they have more music than you can listen to in your lifetime without ever having to repeat the same song twice.
        
        and seriously, if someone wants to release their music under creative commons licenses, then there is nothing wrong with that. Why should anyone listen to you. The fact is that copy privilege laws are not needed for music and art and content to be created, people will create it perfectly well without it. Creative Commons (and many other) licenses are designed exactly to, at least in part, circumvent our broken copyprivilege system and yet plenty of people design software, music, art, etc... under such licenses. Copy privilege laws should be substantially alleviated at best and perhaps even done away with.
        
        "no label will have to license each station because most stations are owned by the same handful of companies"
        
        and this is unethical. Public airwaves should be for the benefit of the public, not for the commercial gain of a hand full of special interest groups that are the highest bribers ... errr... bidders. This is wrong, content on public airwaves should rightfully belong to the public, special interest groups do not have any inherent right to monopolize content on a public platform or to monopolize the platform even.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Apr 2010 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Webcasting is very similar, except webcasters are already paying sound performance royalties. (Despite the uproar that it would put them out of business, it didn't.) If a webcaster has direct licenses, CC or not, my understanding is that it need not pay SoundExchange.
        
        Just to clarify one point: the webcasting royalties DID put many stations out of business, and many more are hanging on by a thread.
        
        Live 365 is a service that lets anyone set up a webcast station and it was one of the two plaintiffs I previously mentioned who argued that the CRB was unconstitutional. It was very interested in this because it had so many thousands of "channels" compared to other webcasters. I think it lost the case on summary judgement and didn't appeal.
        
        Live365 was arguing on a technicality, and the ruling just happened recently, so I believe they still have time to appeal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 4 Apr 2010 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "Just to clarify one point: the webcasting royalties DID put many stations out of business, and many more are hanging on by a thread"
        
        PS we all knew that ...
        
        This is the reason to push CC and similar lisc. It is also the reason to set up a very simple You like this "corn bread" (music corp) artist you might also like these CC artists web site. The pretty lady who doesnt live under a bridge ( Auditrix ) gave me the idea when I researched sound sampling and pattern matching. Use it show similar CC songs in a you might like this list.
        
        Oh and a request ... can we refer to "Auditrix" as "The pretty lady who doesnt live under a bridge"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 6:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "determines the songs, reports back, it for free."
        
        should read
        
        determines the songs, reports back, distribute it for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        Fixes ... typing and cooking
        
        Q 1 - finishes "We have the technology now to" just record the air pay and determine what song is being played.
        
        Q 5 - Tax = Not-A-Tax
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vivaelamor (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re: This isn't a tax
    "Whether the government ever touches the money or not, this is relevant...how? It is a fee that a certain group is forced by the government to pay for engaging in a certain action. That is a tax six ways to Sunday, and you can drop the doublespeak."
    
    I did a lot of looking into the distinction of taxes when researching the UK TV licence fee. Technically speaking I don't think royalties are taxes because they are neither paid to or apportioned by the government. As far as I'm aware, the amount isn't even set by government.
    
    You could get away with calling it a private sector tax.
    
    "Uhh, no. That makes no sense at all. My company uses chairs in the course of creating a profit, without which our productivity would be much lower. Are we obligated to pay the chair manufacturer? The artists and labels are better off if radio plays it than if they don't play it...so by what logic are they owed compensation?"
    
    In this I am more in agreement, but that is more an issue of the justification for copyright in general.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 8:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
      "Technically speaking I don't think royalties are taxes because they are neither paid to or apportioned by the government."
      
      Which is even worse, but it's still effectively a tax.
      
      "You could get away with calling it a private sector tax."
      
      So then you agree it's a tax.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 4 Apr 2010 @ 11:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "So then you agree it's a tax."
        
        Technically, no. Do you read?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re: This isn't a tax
  get paid and get free advertising for my shitty music?!?!?
  
  sign me up!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 2 Apr 2010 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re: This isn't a tax
  "it is only fair that the artists and labels are paid for radio's use of the music"
  
  Wow!!!!! Talk about having been deceived!!! You want to have an honest debate? Great! Let's debate the facts.
  Just don't try and peddle your Progressive bullshit by using terms like "fair".
  
  How it works in open-air broadcasting: the STATION gets paid to play the music/ad/program, people watch/listen and now they know whose product they want to go purchase; everyone wins. Now the RIAA, effectively, just wants their money back, because they claim to be ENTITLED to air time.
  
  In this country NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING!!! Period. You want something? Shut the fuck up and go earn it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vivaelamor (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re: This isn't a tax
    "In this country NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING!!! Period. You want something? Shut the fuck up and go earn it!"
    
    With friends like this, who needs enemies. Do kids earn their education? Do the disabled or elderly earn their care (actually, most do, but we still consider them entitled to it anyway)? Do we earn the right to vote? Do we earn any of our, so called, basic human rights?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 8:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
      "Do kids earn their education?"
      
      If they study hard, sure.
      
      "Do we earn the right to vote?"
      
      We delegate authority to the government to govern and we vote to give them incentive to govern in our best interest. Otherwise, if they are not going to act in our best interest we are better of without a government.
      
      "Do we earn any of our, so called, basic human rights?"
      
      A monopoly on public airwaves, or a monopoly on anything, is not a basic human right
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 4 Apr 2010 @ 11:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "If they study hard, sure."
        
        It may have escaped your notice, but people are entitled to an education regardless of how hard they work.
        
        "We delegate authority to the government to govern and we vote to give them incentive to govern in our best interest. Otherwise, if they are not going to act in our best interest we are better of without a government."
        
        Does not have anything to do with whether people earn the right to vote.
        
        "A monopoly on public airwaves, or a monopoly on anything, is not a basic human right"
        
        Who said it was? I don't agree with the monopoly, I was refuting an overly broad statement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2010 @ 6:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "It may have escaped your notice, but people are entitled to an education regardless of how hard they work."
        
        If you don't study you can't get an education. It is something you must earn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 3:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't a tax
        "If you don't study you can't get an education. It is something you must earn."
        
        If you don't take a penny, you can't get a penny. You may still be entitled to that penny though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Griff? (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 12:09am
  
  Re: This isn't a tax
  Radio? I remember that. My grandmother had one.
  
  I'm in favor of shutting down ALL radio stations in the United States. Well, all except for WINB, which has a fun, checkered past.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 7:30am
  
  Re: This isn't a tax
  I'm ok with those artists not being played and working at McDs. Can you get my big mac for me?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:16pm

I saw someone tweet about this yesterday but I though it was part of the April fool's shenanigans, it's bloody crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:29pm

reading that makes my head hurt
when is the revolution so we can get onto real issues like poverty and global warming and stop all the stupid wars out there.

@18 and as the Canadian CRIA lawsuit is about sometimes even when they know where they are they dont get paid as in a "Pending list" back as far as 1980 , where was napster then i dare say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:33pm

people siting on chairs HURT the sofa industry?
haha

dark helmet created a monster called REALITY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:36pm

do you blame the riaa really
after all you elected the twits to run the USA
and why not see how far they can go and get away with before a revolution does come?

when the drug addicts dont have there tunes on radio this will be the tipping point, up till now they been kept passive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:39pm

AHHH chair makers are now suffering
but hes not paying to use the chair in public everytime someone wants to sit down is he?

PAID ONCE ONLY
and wha he does with it he can do :
Smash said chair in defiance of DA MAN
burn said chair for same reason
he can toss it aorund like steve ballmer ( DONT TELL STEVE ITS NOT HIS CHAIR )

he can crazy glue it to the front law and say sit here , AND GUESS WHAT
he cold put a sign saying if you want to sit here that will be a buck
and if someone pays HE DONT OWE THE CHAIR MAKER A DIME
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUCKING LAZY ARTISTS( SCAMMERS), 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:43pm

if i am store owner
I buy your cdr it should be my right as well as anyone to do with the music after the sale as we wish.

THIS stupid lazy prick notion that so called artists ( ya right your not about art your about money ONLY art is last thing on your minds) like to dribble out is PROOF they need ot get a new vocation , job or go back to school and learn to do something of value and sell that value. YOU CAN only sell it once to each person , else its not a sale. I BUY TO OWN NOT TO lease , rent or otherwise pander to short sighted lazy morons that just wish to sit on there butts while the rest of us have to actually do things for a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vivaelamor (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 6:34am
  
  Re: if i am store owner
  "short sighted lazy morons that just wish to sit on there butts while the rest of us have to actually do things for a living."
  
  I'm sure that'll make 'em see the light.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:48pm

my statistics for canada
CRIA 100%
everyone else goes on pending list

SOUND like i'm joking thats a fact
even Americans up here aren't being paid.
EXPLAIN that and then tell us all the official response as to why my dads favorite artist Bruce Springsteen that he always sees a tape or record buys , has never got a dime of support from him?

I MEAN LIKE why bothering buying if they steal it anyways.
JUST start pirating everywhere thats the message there isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:10pm

When
When you listen to music on a radio station that doesn't pay this new fee to the RIAA, you're listening with Osama bin Laden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:34pm

Does anyone ever consider the unintended consequences of their actions? Holding radio stations as financial hostages will only hurt the music industry in the long run. Mixed-format stations will drop music from the lineup (many radio talk-show hosts use bumper music and already pay for the privilege.) If the costs go up, guess what? Fewer songs and snippets get played over the air = Decreased revenue. DUH.

There's also a cultural drain with a 'radio performance tax.' I developed a lifelong addiction to music I would have never heard otherwise. There was a crazy radio guy who worked the midnight to five a.m. shift on a local radio talk station. His politics were somewhere off in right field but he had great taste in music. Once he organized a free concert and most of these artists whose music he'd played over the years showed up to perform. Most were black jazz artists who are beloved in Europe but completely unknown in the U.S. I've been to concerts I paid tons of money for and this free concert ranks as one of the best musical experiences of my life.

If the start-up costs are prohibitive, these are the kinds of wacky dreams the RIAA will kill. The big corporate giant who owns the radio station will tell Joe Blow hey, you can rant all you want about politics over the radio, but you can't play any music. It costs too much with this radio performance tax, and we're not willing to take the gamble on an unknown like you. A beancounter would probably decide right-wing politics and obscure black jazz musicians was an improbable recipe for success and nix the idea in the planning stages if excessive RIAA fees had to be calculated into the startup costs. The RIAA = dream killers. That's what you greedy bastards are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  Performance royalties haven't hurt the broadcast industry in the rest of the world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    and you know this because?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is something I learned on March 17 at the Beverly Hills Bar Association program "Artist's Performance Rights: European Income and the New Legislation."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words, someone merely asserted it and you believed them. Sorry, but I'm not that gullible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:53pm
  
  Re:
  P.S.
  Small commercial stations will pay less than $5,000 per year, with many paying just $100. Non-commercial stations would pay $1,000 per year or less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:53pm

@Auditrix

I'm confused...

Artists need to advertise to get people to buy their music/shirts/other stuff and attend their concerts and what not.

Radio is advertising for them.

But radio has to pay the artists to advertise for the artists? So does ESPN pay McDonalds to advertise McDonalds commercials on ESPN?

If it is truly like that, then no wonder our business models are screwed up.. Otherwise, the Music industry is the only place where the advertiser gets paid by the people advertising...

I understand what you're getting at, in that the Music is a product that is being played, and the stations are profiting from selling ad time around that product. But, seriously, do you think that a small band would honestly get a lot of exposure if a radio station, suffering from paying high prices to the labels, had to limit its music selection? Can you tell me how this benefits the not-well-known or smaller-to-medium artists out there? Those small dollars they make off of a tax that depends on play time would do little to help, if they can't get more fans (which wont happen if they dont' get much exposure)

Can you tell me with a straight face that lowering cost, thereby allowing more stations to play your stuff more often, would not lead to more people (potential fans) hearing your work, and would then not lead to more profit from things OTHER than radio revenue? If you've got 50 fans, and get played on the radio once in a blue moon, I'm pretty sure I'd waive all 'costs' the radio station owes me if it means I get played several more times (because since I'm cheaper than the other songs being played, that would lead to my song being used more). If my fanbase grew to 300 people because of that, I bet you I make more money off of those fans supporting me, than I would from the 50 fans and occasional radio station payout.

So let me propose this to you. If Person A plays a sport, and does REALLY well in Nike shoes, do you think that Athlete will pay for future Nike shoes? I doubt it. Nike will practically give him every piece of equipment he needs for free/very, very, very lost cost so that people can see him perform in Nike apparel. This leads to more exposure for Nike, which leads to increase revenue. Why can't music people replicate this model when dealing with radio?

Do you know how many artists I now support, because I heard their song on Pandora? Now that Pandora had their costs jacked up by certain parties, they had to limit play time and what not. Now I can't use it as much, and thus lessened my exposure to artists i've never heard of, or didn't like too much (but might have, if I heard more from them) Most of these artists I've NEVER heard on my radio stations. They just lost any chance I become a loyal fan and put money into them in other ways. And, if Pandora (or any other station) goes under because costs are too much, now the artists not only lost a chance I become a loyal fan, they lost that revenue 'tax' as well.

You think it works well, because you're making money. You think it works well, because that worked well X years ago. You think it works well, because you're not an artist who needs exposure to gain more fans.

Just a thought. If this goes through, and I was an artist, I'd tell my label that they can not charge the radio stations my part of the 'tax'. The cheaper it is to play my stuff, the more people will know of me. If I'm good, then the profit will roll in one way or another. It's like acting. If you have one good role (see Keanu Reeves) the exposure it gets you wins you so many more movie roles that it makes you more money in the long term, than it would if he had Reeves demanded an extra 20 million to do the Matrix and not gotten the role, because some other actor took it for less money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:59pm
  
  Re:
  No music means no music station advertising dollars, which means no music stations. If there were no music stations, music sales and audiences of music services that do license sound recordings would increase, not decrease. Therefore, although you can argue that big radio does promote one artist over another, it fails to promote music overall in any kind of a macro way. Moreover, the more profitable the broadcast business has become, the less profitable the music business has become. As I have heard someone else say "Who's really promoting who?"
  
  Is there any other major business that pays nothing for the product it sells?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "No music means no music station advertising dollars, which means no music stations."
    
    There is a plethora of creative commons music that music stations can freely put on the airwaves with the permission of the artist. Many artists are more than willing to have their music on radio stations and not even get paid for it. The problem is that the FCC grants monopoly power to the highest briber ... I mean, bidder instead of putting a small shred of effort into even trying to allocate public airwaves in the best interest of the PUBLIC.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "If there were no music stations, music sales and audiences of music services that do license sound recordings would increase, not decrease. Therefore, although you can argue that big radio does promote one artist over another, it fails to promote music overall in any kind of a macro way. Moreover, the more profitable the broadcast business has become, the less profitable the music business has become. As I have heard someone else say "Who's really promoting who?""
    
    Do you have ANY evidence to support this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, if you couldn't hear music on the radio, mightn't you instead listen to Pandora or XM or another service that pays artists?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I said evidence, not merely speculation.
        
        No, if I couldn't hear music on the radio I am less likely to buy said music being I less unaware of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Well, if you couldn't hear music on the radio, mightn't you instead listen to Pandora or XM or another service that pays artists?"
        
        It depends -- if those outlets have programming that's worth my time and/or money, perhaps.
        
        I know that right now, commercial radio doesn't have such programming. It hit the skids a couple of decades ago, and when I occasionally hear it I am reminded of why I don't listen.
        
        In the end, though, I can't take sides on this. It's the awful Big Radio vs the awful Big Music. Dinosaurs eating each other. Whichever one wins, the artists and audiences remain the losers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I want some of what you're smoking.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:58pm

What part of the phrase dream-killer don't you understand? There's a logical reason to pay necessary taxes for roads, fire and police protection. There is NO pressing need for any performance royalty tax that benefits a few special interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re:
  It isn't a tax. It's common sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The fact that it's a tax is common sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew D. Todd, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:14pm

Music and Classical MIDI, to: nasch (Apr 2nd, 2010 @ 12:13pm)
If you are talking about classical music, there is Classical MIDI. It does for instrumental music what Autotune does for vocal music, only it does it better, within the limited sphere of instrumental music. There are a number of individuals who each produce MIDI programs on the same scale that a national symphony orchestra produces conventional recordings. Then too, if computer programs can compose music outright, to the point that experts cannot tell which is real Mozart and which is a computer emulating Mozart, they can certainly do the "minor composition" of arranging existing music. At that point, the people republishing old music would have the kind of productivity one associates with Project Gutenberg. Alternatively, there are students who web-publish "albums" of their own compositions. The market price of classical MIDI files is approximately zero. Naturally, one can plug a computer into a radio transmitter to play MIDI files.

Going further, you can adjust the timings to make classical music into something like hard rock. Here's a comment I put up last year:

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090616/1527385253#c829

Think of Ravel's _Bolero_, as a rough idea of what could be done. The radio broadcasters will obviously do something like this before they hand over any appreciable fraction of their revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairplay, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:22pm

The simple truth
I believe that the whole issue of recorded music industry is simple process. Some smart people (Recording studios) saw an opportunity to make money by recording a live music shows and selling it on LP's and later CD's and DVD's. It worked great and they made lost of money and paid the artists as little as possible. Recording sessions followed on from this and that worked great too. They had free advertising from radio stations and being smart even got the radio stations to pay some of the people involved in the process of making the music.
Nice idea and the made lots of money but alas like all economic money making ventures, if there is too much money to be made someone else will jump in or find a better way to produce it or something better.
This concept or idea has come to an end perhaps as a result of the internet but mainly because customers are better informed and can not understand why they should pay $30.00 for a plastic disc that costs $3.00 (marginal cost) to make (this includes the the artists fees but no advertising). To stop the downward trend of sales maybe start selling them closer to marginal cost of the product say $5.00 or less.
Artist should be paid when they work ie producing music and if they can get (extort?) money from the studios for selling their music, also good but it should not be exorbitant. This means the artists are no worse off than before, radio and the internet is now free advertising and even the recording studios will make money just like any ordinary business should.
The same is true for television, movies and and to a degree the newspaper industry which had smart people that sold advertising and gave the product away and now there are simply better ways of selling that advertising. News Corp is caught in a triple whammy - Good luck to them but in my honest opinion they have made to much money from other peoples efforts for far to long and the smart peoples ideas have outlived their usefulness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 4:26pm

"I don't have time to enumerate for you."

You've been in here commenting all day but don't have time to back yourself up by citing anything at all concrete (much less enumerating) from "the mountain of well documented facts". That mountain must be made of big rock candy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 5:14pm

Free?!!?!?!??!!!!
Wait but free is bad and will never work so they can't be getting free anything, I mean its bad to get stuff free right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 5:25pm

It should be stated that either way, some one is going to feel they are getting burned.

If the stations have to pay the royalty, then they will be forced to pay money which they currently do not have. It is obvious they don't have much money, since Citadel Broadcasting, the third largest radio station owner has filed for bankruptcy. Cumulus Media, the second largest station owner has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for a while.

If artists feel the are getting burned, then they should pull their music from airplay. They are getting free advertising, but if that is not good enough, then they should ban the airplay.

With that said, I can see both sides clearly. However I think it is safe to say that radio is extremely beneficial to the music industry. For example, perhaps the most popular artists in the world right now is Taylor Swift. Why is she popular? Because the radio got her music out to the masses. While internet can do that as well, how is she any different then the hundreds of other artists on the internet of her age group? Such as the artists on OurStage, Myspace, etc? She got radio play. That is what made her famous. Her songs getting saturated on the radio is what made her popular. Not the internet, and not luck.

The music industry can not survive without the radio. The internet does not have the promotion power, and many people are not willing to pay for SiriusXM. Not too mention that SiriusXM is just now for the first time breaking even due to the high royalty rates they have to pay. That was after they merged and were bailed out. Pandora/Slacker on the other hand, while great products, are not easily accessible to most people. Especially while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:54pm
  
  Re:
  "If artists feel the are getting burned, then they should pull their music from airplay."
  
  The fact is that any artist would tell you that the substantial majority of their income from music/art comes from things like concerts and not collection agencies like the RIAA et al. The collection agencies do not pay their artists what they owe them and even what they owe them is a small percentage of each CD sale, like a few cents per CD as stipulated in a contract. An artist would have to sell millions of CD's to get a decent amount of money from CD sales. Most artists would much rather their music be heard on radio stations and I want an FCC that doesn't allocate radio stations to the highest briber .... I mean, bidder, for commercial use, but that ensures said bandwidth is used for the PUBLIC benefit instead. I know, that's such a difficult concept to grasp, since industry is selfish and has so much control over politicians, but I don't care. I would rather disbar the FCC than to allow them to grant monopoly power on PUBLIC airwaves for commercial use and then allow monopolies to be granted on the content on those PUBLIC airwaves. If it's on public airwaves it should be in the public domain for everyone to use, no one has an inherent right to those airwaves, they should be there for the PUBLIC good not the good of industry. I contend that we would be much better off disbarring the FCC and de - monopolizing public airwaves for everyone's use.
  
  Sure, it may result become disorganized but if it is disorganized that just means it's in fact being used and hence serving a purpose and I would much rather it being used freely by everyone than to give monopoly power to some commercial entity. Allowing it to be used by everyone could allow people to develop new kinds of radios and devices and phones that interact with each other where I can walk into a store and request any song I want on my phone and listen to it and so can anyone else enabling far more bandwidth among devices and across devices. I would much rather it be used for that. Without an FCC making retarded laws limiting transmission strength individuals can buy equipment that communicates with each other over far further distances and use that to create an airwave Internet enabling far more bandwidth across local areas and perhaps linking it to the Internet. So the government can't control copyprivileges and IP but IP already hinders the progress enough, we shouldn't allow something as useless and harmful to society as IP privileges to stop such useful innovation. Enabling a free market of airwaves can create all sorts of innovations but the FCC is too corrupt to allow such a thing, even when the airwaves went digital freeing up spectrum the government destroyed potential innovations that can come from that by commercializing airwaves. No, airwaves should not be something to commercialize and monopolize and allow special interest groups to use them in a way that minimizes consumer surplus and maximizes producer surplus and allows people to collect monopoly rents (ie: more advertising and less content). They should be allocated in the PUBLIC interest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 6:50pm

Responses to Auditrix
Okay, sorry for the long post, but I feel I really have to comment on some of the things said by "Auditrix."

For background: according to her profile, "Auditrix" is Cedar Boschan, a partner at Hurewitz, Boschan & Co. LLP, which is a royalty audit firm. In other words, while she knows what she's talking about, she is also economically biased in favor of anything that creates royalty payments.

I, on the other hand, am an independent artist, who (like most) will probably never collect radio royalties of any kind. On the one hand, I'd like to see radio freed up for independent artists; but on the other hand, if every radio station went out of business tomorrow, I wouldn't lose a penny. Neither am I a lawyer or an industry professional.

Now then.

Currently, radio stations pay royalty fees to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. (Harry Fox does collect radio fees as well, but I'd have to research the circumstances.) These organizations represent songwriters and music publishers - who, assuming you write your own music, are also the performers.

The bills in question are H.R.848 (which I think started as H.R.4789) and S.379. Both have nearly identical wording. They establish, by law, an additional system of fees to performers placed on terrestrial radio stations. It is not specified in either bill who would do the collecting, or what constitutes a "performer." Since they obviously do not mean "songwriter," likely they mean the "copyright holder."

It isn't a tax. The money does not go to the government. It is a license fee.

You're right, it's not. But it is a compulsory fee - one that you cannot opt out of, unlike a civil contract. (For an example of "opting out," look at the history of ASCAP vs. BMI.)

It is, in other words, a law, not just a "fee."

A radio station can opt to use creative commons license or public domain recordings and songs[...]

I'm not so sure about that. SoundExchange collects money "for" everyone, not just people on the RIAA's roster. Not even the people at Creative Commons know what's going on with that. The proposed laws' intent is to create another SoundExchange, so who knows what would be covered.

The government got involved many years ago to exempt radio stations from paying sound recording royalties.

That's a bit disingenuous. Until a decade ago, nobody paid those royalties for broadcast music. The government only "got involved" when the RIAA claimed digitial distribution was "piracy," and created those royalties.

I guess they did get involved when they outlawed "payola" - the voluntary payment to get songs played on the radio for free. Funny how they've done a 180, and now want to legally require radio stations to give payola to the record labels.

Even if radio promotes recordings, radio derives profit from the recordings through ad sales, so it is only fair that the artists and labels are paid for radio's use of the music.

Music that is put on the radio is an advertisement for an album. But by law, radio station cannot charge the record companies anything for that advertisement. So they must get money through other means - other types of advertisements ("commercials"), donations, public funding, etc.

In other words, it would be much more fair if record labels paid the radio stations. Unfortunately, the government got involved many years ago to exempt record labels from paying for advertising.

Not that radio stations had a right to complain. For almost 100 years, labels and radio stations both made a lot of money this way.

There are always problems, but, sound recording performance royalties are paid from the collection agent directly to the artist and record companies, so the artist share will not pass through the record companies...

If the proposed collection agency is modeled on SoundExchange, then you are wrong. SoundExchange represents nobody but "Sound Recording Copyright Owners" (SCRO's), which are almost always record labels. It has, in its relatively short history, already gotten a terrible reputation for screwing over artists. Hardly surprising, given its beginnings as a subsidiary of the RIAA, its current status as a lobbying partner with musicFIRST, and its de facto status as a monopoly fee collector (even for artists who are not represented by the RIAA).
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326/870
http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/sou ndexchange-nonprofit-caught-lobbying-big-surprise-next-story
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/20 07/08/music-lawyer-to/
http://www.royaltylogic.com/release/February-02-2009

50 percent - Sound recording copyright owner (while often a record label, some artists own the copyright for their master recordings)
45 percent - DIRECTLY to the featured artist (not to the record label or RIAA)
5 percent - non-featured artists [AFTRA] and [AFM]

I have no idea where those figures come from. From what I've been able to find, the figures for SoundExchange are much, much lower for artists, and that's what the current legislation is based on. If you actually have any evidence that 45% of royalties get paid to artists, then I'd love to see it.

The handful big media companies who own nearly all of the USA's commercial radio stations are going to great lengths to mislead the public to think that artists will not receive a significant share of the performance royalties. This is a lie.

No mention of the fact that the RIAA represents corporations who are much, MUCH larger than the ones that own commercial radio stations, and have far more connections in Washington. Nor any mention of the fact that those corporations have a long and sordid history of never paying artists, then lying about it.

And no mention of the fact that much of the criticism of this bill has come from NON-commercial radio stations (public radio, college radio, etc), the aforementioned songwriting organizations, groups like Creative Commons, and plain ol' indie artists. Not one of these people has been paid a dime by the "big media companies." In contrast, the corporations represented by the RIAA seem to be the only ones who believe this law is a good one.

And all this happens at a time when terrestrial radio is perhaps the only industry on the planet doing worse than major labels.

This law isn't going to help indie artists, it won't help most artists on major labels, and in the long run it won't even help the labels themselves. The only thing it will do is force radio stations under. Any that remain will be those horrible Top 40 stations that you're forced to listen to at work. That and talk radio, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 9 Apr 2010 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re: Responses to Auditrix
  Quick update:
  
  The actual text of the bill is here:
  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s379/text
  
  All it does is make terrestrial stations obey exactly the same laws as internet/cable radio.
  
  That is: it all goes to SoundExchange, and it's explicitly for copyright holders (and nobody else).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2010 @ 7:51pm

Out of curiosity, I would assume this royalty charge does not apply to Shortwave Radio stations. Am I correct in thinking this?

If it does apply, that seems like a waste of time since they can simply broadcast from another country due to the range of the station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Auditrix (profile), 2 Apr 2010 @ 10:54pm
  
  Re:
  I am no lawyer so I may be wrong, but I think if the shortwave radio station is operating in the US, US laws apply. If they broadcast from another country, that country's laws apply.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 4 Apr 2010 @ 7:02pm
  
  Re:
  My understanding is that shortwave radio is considered a completely different legal entity from AM or FM radio. The only info I've found suggests that shortwave radio is governed exclusively by an FCC-granted "amateur license."
  
  As a rule of thumb: if you haven't had to give royalties to ASCAP or BMI, probably it won't apply to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 1:15am

Funny stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 1:31am

Broadcast Tax vs Bailout Tax?
In the UK you have to pay for a TV tax. This helps subsidize Country-Recognized broadcasting such as the BBC.

Do US broadcasters expect a similar system?

If so, the only way I'd formally pay for a Radio or Broadcast Tax is if it was commercial free, and it adhered to the original copyright system established circa 1776.

You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 2:24am

Broadcast Tax vs Bailout Tax?
In the UK you have to pay for a TV tax. This helps subsidize Country-Recognized broadcasting such as the BBC.

Do US broadcasters expect a similar system?

If so, the only way I'd formally pay for a Radio or Broadcast Tax is if it was commercial free, and it adhered to the original copyright system established circa 1776.

You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert, 3 Apr 2010 @ 8:26am

RIAA at it again...
Simply put so long as the RECORDING INDUSTRY is using profits from record sales to modify laws that affect me, the products I buy and the privacy I have then they will not see a red cent from me.

The RIAA is not a government organization as some I've run into believe. The RIAA was created as a body of the record labels to promote the sales numbers of records. Gold and Platinum records were awarded by then on sales numbers. That's all it was. Somehow since the 70's the RIAA has become the music police of the world.

They want your internet provider to give them records on your internet usage. They want your personal information too. Yet to this day not one copyright is owned by the RIAA however they sue for copyright infringement. The owner of the copyright has to sue for it, not some random representative organization but for some reason the US courts allow it anyway.

If the record labels want my business then THE RIAA HAS TO BE REDUCED BACK TO BEING A BEAN COUNTER. Until then I plan on downloading EVERYTHING I CAN. Maybe one day when those record labels figure out the reason for the decline in sales is the RIAA then music can get back to being music.

Until then I'll just pirate with my FM radio haha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2010 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re: RIAA at it again...
  "Until then I'll just pirate with my FM radio haha."
  
  It is a perverted use of public airwaves when the government allows some private entity to put content on those PUBLIC airwaves and then to arbitrarily tax that content where the proceeds go to that private entity and then it's even more of a perversion when the government subsequently limits or denies my right to distribute my own content on those public airwaves. The public airwaves should serve the PUBLIC good, not the good of some commercial entity and they should not be used to put taxed content on it and then pass laws that limit the ability of others to distribute their own free content. I do not want public airwaves to be used to distribute content that gets taxed by some private entity especially if the government is going to limit my use of those public airwaves. Only non taxable content belongs on public airwaves and at the very least if the content is going to be taxed I don't want the proceeds going to the RIAA, I want them being used for the public good (of course they won't be used for the public good which is why I am against the idea that taxable content belongs on public airwaves to begin with).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Captain Obvious, 3 Apr 2010 @ 8:26am

Somebody just needs to take out the RIAA headquarters. Literally. Without a place to operate from, they cannot function. The law will never truly punish them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HotForAuditrix, 3 Apr 2010 @ 9:52am

Auditrix:

You're pretty hot. Want a shot at becoming a dominatrix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 3 Apr 2010 @ 4:31pm

I am an artist.I am the leader for Maine's oldest punk rock band, "Big Meat Hammer" and I am very angry over this law.For years radio has been a major way for me and others to get free advertisement all for the cost of mailing out a release w/ press kit and I have not minded doing that one bit.I have been doing that stuff since my first original band sent out reel to reels in 1978.
I am totally against this law and will urge all folks to boycott any labels &/or artists who would support this bullshit.
THIS IS NOT EUROPE !!! We are in the USA and the laws have been for many years on book but now greedy assholes want to force radio to pay them even more money.
RADIO STATIONS:::::::::::::
BOYCOTT all labels RIAAA Asses who would sign on to this.Never play their music at all.They are greedy asses so let them start their own greedy radio stations.
If I was still a DJ now I would never play any RIAA Krap.I will never buy nor shall I ever listen to anything their BS puts out.
As somebody said above some crazy person needs to take out their headquarters.I am so sick of reading more greedbag company news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 4 Apr 2010 @ 8:31am
  
  Re: gorehound
  BOYCOTT all labels RIAAA Asses who would sign on to this.Never play their music at all.They are greedy asses so let them start their own greedy radio stations.
  
  Here's the problem: they can't do that.
  
  Under the current law for Internet radio, neither stations nor labels nor artists can "opt out" of the royalty fees, even if they want to.
  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326/870
  
  By the way: if your music has ever been played on any internet radio station, they probably owe you money. And by "they" I mean SoundExchange, who by law are the only ones allowed to collect those royalties. I imagine you want to contact them, because if you don't, they'll just keep your money and spend it on lobbying Congress.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robin, 23 May 2010 @ 10:58am

Next: Car commercials charging TV shows to air their advertisements.

The thing the music industry keeps forgetting is that you can't sell a product without advertising it. Sure, the radio uses music to attract listeners, but it's also allowing listeners to hear songs from artists that they may be unfamiliar with. If they have to pay to play, they're just going to keep playing songs with a proven track record, the songs everyone's heard.

For some odd reason, the music industry thinks people will buy cds even if they don't know what the music sounds like. The simple fact is, it needs some method of allowing people to sample a wide range of music *without* downloading it, because once someone has it on their mp3 player, they're far less likely to buy it. I have never paid money for any music that I hadn't heard on youtube, radio, or in a play/commercial/tv show before. *That* should be how they make their money, by selling the cds/individual songs, rather than penalizing those who give them advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]